17 June 1837 A.D. Old School Presbyterians Prepare to Act

June 17: Old School Prepares to Act
(1837)

The following is a newspaper account of the proceedings
of the PCUSA General Assembly of 1837, in which the Old School men effectively
excised four New School synods from the denomination. Here in this account is a
record of the debate over that action. A Convention of Old School men met in
Philadelphia in May, prior to the Assembly, and a Memorial rising from that
Convention was presented at the Assembly. The Memorial sought the dissolution
of the 1801 Plan of Union, a reinvigoration of sound Presbyterian principles
throughout the denomination, and immediate disciplinary measures directed at
both men and the inferior courts (presbyteries and synods) charged with holding specified
theological errors.

I
realize this may be more than some will want to read, but as a record of the
history of that event, this account is quite interesting on a number of levels.

Debate on the Memorial of the Convention, touching the
citation of Inferior Judicatories—as reported by the Editor of
the Presbyterian.

Mr.
Plumer moved to bring up this business under the following resolutions :

1.
That the proper steps be now taken to cite to the bar of the next Assembly such
inferior judicatories as are charged by common fame with irregularities.

2.
That a special committee be now appointed to ascertain what inferior
judicatures are thus charged by common fame, prepare charges and specifications
against them, and to digest a suitable plan of procedure in the matter, and
that said committee be requested to report as soon as, practicable.

3.
That as citation on the foregoing plan is the commencement of a process
involving the right of membership in the Assembly :

Therefore,

Resolved, That
agreeably to a principle laid down, Chap. V. Sec. 9th, of the Form
of Government, the members of said judicatories be excluded from a seat in the
next Assembly, until their case shall be decided.

He
then read from Book of Discipline, Chap. V. 9, on the discretionary right of a
church judicatory to exclude one under process from the privilege of
deliberating and voting. Also, from Form of Government, Chap. XII. 5, on
the powers of the General Assembly in relation to controversies and errors.
Also, from the Book of Discipline, Chap. VII. Sec. 1, sub. Sec. 5 and 6, in
relation to powers of review and control.—These quotations went directly to the
proof that the Assembly had all the powers of interference contemplated in the
resolutions before the house. When common fame alleged the existence of
grievance in inferior judicatories, they had the right of citation and trial,
and until this was done, the persons charged might be denied their seat in the
Assembly.

Mr.
Jessup rose to oppose the adopt of the resolutions, on the ground that they
infringed the constitution. The language of the instrument has not left
it to implication, what are the precise powers of the Assembly—they are all
specified. He had no doubt that it had the power to cite Synods to its
bar. This has been exercised ; one Synod (Western Reserve) had thus been
cited, had appeared, and had answered satisfactorily. But Synods, as
such, cannot be excluded from this floor ; Presbyteries are represented here,
and we cannot reach Presbyteries except by a constructive power. It is
not competent to the Assembly to carry on an impeachment against a Presbytery,
for this is the province of a Synod. The doctrine is advanced that the
right of reproving, implies right to cite and try, for how can they be reproved
before trial. When, however, gross irregularities or erroneous doctrines
prevail in a Presbytery, a testimony may be borne against them, and they may be
reproved.—It is not necessary to this, that a citation should be issued ; this
is a power which does not belong to the Assembly, in relation to a
Presbytery,as it is expressly delegated to another body. It is not
implied in “suppressing schismatical contentions” that we may arraign
Presbyteries or individuals, and try them as if it were for their lives.
Consult your book on actual process, and see to whom is intrusted the power of
commencing it. . . .

Mr.
Breckinridge regarded the subject as one of great importance, as well as of
difficulty. The speaker who preceded him, had probably given the
strongest views which could be given on that side of the question.—What is
contemplated in the resolutions, is entirely within the jurisdiction of the
Assembly ; nay, they could do much more than this. . . . .

Mr.
White. He admired the talent of the last speaker, but he had, as he
himself had acknowledged assumed unconstitutional grounds. . . . .

Friday Morning, May 25.

Dr.
Beman. In remarking on this subject he noticed the opposite grounds
assumed by gentlemen. One (Mr. Plumer) says, the measure proposed carries
out the constitution, and another (Dr. Breckinridge) says, we should proceed on
the ground, that necessity knows no law. He would be led to notice both
positions. The first point he would insist on, was in reference to the
power of the Assembly in relation to inferior judicatories. The question
was, had the General Assembly any right to originate process, involving
deposition ; he contended that it had not, and he appealed to the Book. . . . .

Page
96

GENERAL
ASSEMBLY.

[Debate—Continued
from first page]

Mr.
Plumer. He differed from Mr. Jessup on the extent of authority vested in the
General Assembly. The 5th sub. sec. of 1st sec. chap. vii. in the Book of
Discipline, gives the Assembly ample control over Synods which fail to perform
their duty, and the interference is not only justified by the case of the
Synod of Kentucky already quoted, but by the settled practices of the
Scottish Church, to which we are so greatly indebted for our present
Constitution. [Mr. Plumer here quoted largely from Steuart’s Collections
in proof, that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, directly and
through their commissions, exercised authority in the suppression of error,
by the citation of refractory Presbyteries and Ministers.] This he deemed
very high authority. He was amused and surprised to hear one gentleman
(Dr. Beman) so eloquently contend for the eternal rights of Presbyteries, and
he was led to think what could be the meaning of the gentleman. Were
the rights of which he spoke eternal
a parte ante, or a
parte post? If it was the former, then the Presbyterian form
of government was much more ancient than he had ever imagined, for he had never
dreamed of tracing it further back than to the time that Ezra arranged the
Synagogue worship ; if it were the latter, that Presbyterianism was to be
perpetuated in heaven, then it was singular enough considering the quarter from
which it came that we should have the eternally divine right of Presbyterianism
so strongly maintained—it was high-churchism of a truth. The gentleman’s
metaphors were also remarkable ; first we had a big trumpet emptying its sounds
into another trumpet, and it in its turn emptying itself into a dish, and then
the dish filled with northern gales and southern breezes, presented to regale
the General Assembly. Such a dish reminded him of an anecdote of a
Minister’s servant who was very clever in making inferences ; on one occasion
he was asked what inference he would draw from this text, “a wild Ass that
snuffeth up the wind at pleasure,” and his answer was, that he would infer that
he might snuff a good while before he would grow fat on it. So he would
say of this dish which the gentleman had prepared for the Assembly, in all
likelihood they would never grow fat on it. Having thus disposed of the
salmagundi dishes, he would turn to other matters. It was indeed pleasant
to hear it acknowledged by gentlemen on the other side, that there were in the
Church two systems of theological views, [Mr. Dickinson explained that he meant
two systems of explaining doctrines.] Well, that is even plainer ; there
are two distinct and different systems of explaining the doctrines of religion
; that point is now settled, and it is fully conceded. Then again he was
surprised that the same gentleman from Lane Seminary, should undertake to
compare the differences which existed in the Presbyterian Church in 1820, with
those now existing. The subjects of difference were totally different as
he should have known, and the points now in dispute were not agitated
then. It was laid down as a principle by all writers on the laws of
nations, that when a privilege was granted by one nation to another, every
thing was included, which was necessary to the enjoyment of the
privilege. Thus, if an army had permission to pass through a certain
territory, it was certainly implied that they might cut down trees to make
bridges, if it should be necessary on their march. So, if the right of
citation is given to the Assembly, it includes the right of calling for persons
and papers. They may appoint a commission to carry their citation into
effect, and this commission may send for men and papers ; they may require the
records of Presbyteries and Sessions. Mr. Jessup had said, that no power
of the Assembly could reach the records of his Presbytery ; but if refused, it
would be under the penalty of contumacy, and if this were not so, the whole
thing would be no better than a consummate farce ; if testimony could not be
demanded, then we might as well go home at once. It had been
acknowledged, that we had the power to reprove, but how could this be done,
unless there was some way of getting at the proof? The changes had been
rung on “trampling the constitution under our feet ;” but there were two senses
in which the constitution might be brought under our feet. We might place
our feet on it as we would on the rock of Gilbraltar, as a secure foundation,
and in this way the brethren who acted with him had it under their feet ; and
in another sense, it might be trampled under foot with scorn, the way in which
it was treated by some others. One gentleman had solemnly averred, that
the constitution had provided only for process against an individual, and yet
there was the Book expressly providing for the citation
of judicatories! It was rendered incumbent on the superior
judicatory to take this course, and if it had power to call for records.
He was glad to hear the gentleman from Lane Seminary acknowledge,
that reform was necessary, but the remedy he proposed was inefficient : mere
advice and exhortation would not do ; the stronger measure which was now
proposed, was the only one that was adequate. Two things he would now
state as a tribute to charity; and the first was, that there was no contention
between old-school men and Congregationalists as such. There was no
war on New England and its old theology. When the late Dr. Porter
was spending a winter to the south, he was invited to deliver a course of
lectures in an old-school Theological Seminary : that was no proof of
hostility to New England; and the name of Nettleton and others of similar
stamp, was held in reverence by old-school men. It should be known
then, that we wage no war against the Congregationalism of New England or the
theology of Edwards. And again, he would say, that we have no contest with
other denominations ; we cherish for them the most fraternal feelings, and
extend to them our Christian regards. On the contrary, it is for the
orer, the constitution, the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, that we
contend.

Friday
Morning, May 26.

Dr.
Peters. Tlie first resolution under consideration, proposes the citation of
inferior judicatories ; and the proceeding is extraordinary ; it should not be
entered on, unless the common fame is definite and attaches to persons.
If the individuals were named who are charge, then we would go the work.
It is most extraordinary that this great court of errors, should lay aside its
regular judicial business, to hunt after a criminal ; there is no provision in
the book for this. He would again call attention to the powers of the
Assembly as laid down in the form of Government, Chap. XII. sec. 5. and here
there was not a word said as to the mode of exercising the power. Mr.
Plumer goes for authority to the Scotch Church, but he would go to the book of
Discipline, Chap. VII, 1,2, for the mode. There it is provided that cases
must go from lower to higher judicatories, and the process must be against
individuals. The power of citation is admitted, but it is not for
trial, as as you do not know that there will be ground for trial, but merely
that the matter may be remitted. It is for a mere inquiry, to know
what they have done or left undone ; then you may issue an order, and if they
refuse obedience, then you may cite again for trial, and although the old
Book does not exactly specify what is to be done, yet you unquestionably have
the right of trial. There is another way of testifying against errors,
if we could only get them within the rules of this house. He could not
consent to cite, because he did not know what judicatories were to be cited,
and it was to him an unparalled departure from dignity in this house to go out
to hunt for criminals.—As to excluding members from their seats, he thought we
were legislating beyond our bounds, when we legislated for another
Assembly. Dr. Baxter has taken the position that the ministers of
Congregational churches have no right to seats in this house, and that the
measures now before you are a continuation of the work already accomplished ;
but he would reply, that the churches formed under the union were lawfully
formed agreeably to the stipulations between the Presbyterian Church and the
association of Connecticut. Can we now say that the union was
unconstitutional? One half hour before its abrogation, these churches were
regular, but now it is said they are irregular ; if so, why not now discipline
them and they may yet become regular. He felt no alarm at the abrogation
of the resolutions as they could not affect the churches, which had been formed
under the Assembly’s rule. Your abrogation is a nullity ; it only
prevents other churches from being formed on this principle. You are
bound to protect these churches and not rashly and rudely to break up their
foundations. Are you going to exclude ministers because they are pastors
of Congregational Churches? Why a Presbytery consists of all the
ministers within a certain district, with a ruling elder from each church, and
although one may be a tobacconist, another a book merchant, and a third a
seller of cotton and purple, yet you do not interfere or vitiate their
standing. To cut off immediately has been the doctrine avowed on this
floor and in the Convention, and it is certainly very convenient to say that
because there is a common fame against them, they should be excluded ; this is
the shortest way, and therefore, said to be the best. Mr. Plumer quotes
Scotch authority for this, although he has no idea of the rule applying to the
South. We were told yesterday, very logically, that as no system provides
for its own dissolution, that therefore, we must adopt unconstitutional
measures, lest the Assembly should stultify itself. He had pleasure in
referring to the mere pacific remarks of Dr. Baxter, who supposed that two
families under the same roof would come into collision, and that peace would be
promoted by a separation. But divisions cannot be ; the constitution
binds us together ; and if any are dissatisfied, they can retire and plant
their flag outside. If, however, a proposition to this effect were kindly
made, it would be received in the same spirit ; an amicable division might take
place, but we are not to be driven from this blessed constitution. We
have no proposition for division to make, but if it should come from another
quarter, he would promote it by any proper means ; for he was persuaded, that
the sooner the parties were apart, the sooner the atmosphere between them would
be clarified, and they be prepared to unite on higher grounds.

Dr.
McAuley, would not commence by stating, as many had, that he had but “a word” to say, and then
speak half an hour, which time, however he certainly would not speak. He
was unwell ; and desired only to administer a corrective to some of his friends
who quoted authorities from the church of Scotland. He would read from
the “Compend” of the Laws of that Church, to show what was the power of the commissions which are
integral parts of the constitution of the Scotch Church.

[Dr.
McAuley then read, and commented on various parts of the book for the space of
half an hour, to show that the Church of Scotland was in union with the state,
and of course,
that the acts of that Church were of no authority in interpreting our constitution.]

Dr.
McAuley then alluded to the constitution of the Church which, he contended, did
not authorize the General Assembly to institute these proceedings. He
went on further to argue, that if this Assembly could exclude members from the
next house by these resolutions, the Presbyteries to which they belonged could
not even elect Commissioners to the Assembly,—nor perform any of the acts
appropriate to the offices of the ministry and eldership. He hoped there
was good sense and loyalty enough to prevent the passages of these resolutions
; which, while he would condemn heresy, he considered an unlawful method of
attaining a right end. That end would be obtained at the proper time, if
we adhered to the constitution. God is long suffering to usward, and he
would be so to erring brethren. Bear with them, and you may reclaim them.

In
allusion to Presbyterian Ministers preaching to Congregational Churches, he
contended, that this was as proper, as for such ministers to abandon the
preaching of the Gospel, to engage in merchandise, or edit mis-called religious
newspapers—but who were nevertheless allowed to sit in our judicatories.
Every minister who has taken our Book,—not “for substance of doctrine,” but
sincerely and fully, is a duly qualified minister, and may sit in the General
Assembly. I believe, that we may reach errorists another way than by
these resolutions. Every man, who is not a sound Presbyterian, ought to
go out from us, or to be turned out.

He
did not know, that any of the doctrines specified in the list presented by the
Committee on the Memorial, existed in the Church ; and until it was proved,
that the ministers who were to be excluded really did hold these or similar
errors, they must be allowed all their constitutional rights.

A
few words as to common fame.
I am incredulous as to the existence of any common fame. But, I am asked,
“What, have you not read the religious newspapers?”, I look at my book, which
defines common fame, and it says, that rashness,
censoriousness or malice, in the individual raising a general
rumour invalidates it. It is not common fame at all. A man may get
the control of a religious paper, and use it for the purpose of attacking the
character of ministers, and then call this common fame. But this is
nothing but common fame against the propagator.
Such men ought to be censured for publishing such a dreadful common fame.
Before we go forward in this business let us see who common fame is, and what
it says.

There
is but a paltry gain, as three years will show, to be made by pursuing the plan
of these resolutions. Let us not, for such an end, incur the great
expense, which it involves.

There
was then a call for the previous question, which was agreed to ; the main
question was then put, and the ayes and noes being called, the question was
carried in the affirmative, as follows :

Lutheran

Presbyterian

About Me

Retired. Reformed and Presbyterian by background, but dedicated to the Anglican Prayerbook with degrees from Presbyterian and Episcopal seminaries. Informed by both traditions. Not giving up the 1662 BCP for the Presbyterians and not giving up the Westminster Standards for the Anglicans.